In Brief
A company, the payee of dishonored cheques, filed a criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act through its authorized General Manager. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, arguing the complaint was incompetent because the officer filing it lacked explicit authorization and knowledge averments as supposedly required by precedent. The High Court quashed the cognizance order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that when a company is the payee, filing a complaint in the company's name through an authorized representative who has knowledge of the transaction satisfies statutory requirements. Issues of authorization and knowledge are matters for trial, not threshold dismissal. The Court distinguished prior case law dealing with individual payees.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.